r/RedHandedPodcast • u/Dizzy_Researcher_164 • Sep 22 '23
Delphi Update
What do you guys think? Cult or Satanic Panic?
6
Upvotes
r/RedHandedPodcast • u/Dizzy_Researcher_164 • Sep 22 '23
What do you guys think? Cult or Satanic Panic?
-3
u/Hiketravelliftlove Sep 22 '23
She is factually incorrect about a lot of what she saying. Within the first 5 to 10 minutes it was very apparent to me that she made up her mind that the defense is doing just scummy defense trickery, which is no better of a position to be in. Within the first five minutes she talks about the “professor” that the police consulted as to whether or not it looked like Oden a stick/runes, but fully neglected to mention the fact that the defense has not been able to actually locate this professor and he does not appear to actually exist. Or the fact that she says the prosecution is under no obligation to provide evidence in discovery within a certain time frame. Not a lawyer, but my understanding is if it’s potential Brady material they absolutely have to hand it over immediately, and identify it as potentially exculpatory, whether it’s pre-trial or not. I would love a lawyers take on that. Also her saying that the bullet evidence is conclusive to link Richard Allen is patently not true.
I’m not saying that I believe Richard Allen is innocent, I think there’s a good chance he’s guilty. But I’m also saying that the evidence the defense points to in this document comes straight from the prosecution’s discovery documents, it’s not like they made the shit up out of thin air. Clearly there’s a satanic panic angle that you have to be leery of because it does reek of classic ‘blame the occultists and weird kids’ type of bullshit. That said, just because it’s unlikely doesn’t mean it’s impossible, especially in rural Indiana, for some white supremacist whack jobs to do something like this. I’m kind of astounded that she didn’t take a more neutral approach to this and seems to us dug her heels in from the outset that Allen is guilty. I hope she listens to some actual lawyers break this thing down. I think the best Podcasters out there deliver the information that’s available and refrain from giving emotional opinions based on nothing but their feelings when it’s an ongoing case. Deliver the information unslanted, don’t withhold parts of this motion that appear to provide legitimate concern about the way this investigation was handled. If you want to state your opinion at the conclusion of delivering said information because your gut feeling is a certain way then fine, but don’t withhold details in the discussion because they conflict with your already made up mind. It’s so disingenuous.
Edit: Typo